Review of Abortion Law To Include Consent Provision

WASHINGTON--The U.S. Supreme Court last week announced that it will
review Pennsylvania's restrictive abortion law, including its provision
requiring a minor to get either the "informed consent" of one parent or
a court order to have the procedure.

The High Courton Jan. 21 agreed to review a ruling by the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit that upheld most provisions of the
1989 Pennsylvania law, which requires doctors to inform women about
alternatives to abortion and makes women wait 24 hours after receiving
such information before having the procedure.

The appeals court struck down a provision that requires a married
woman to inform her husband before having an abortion, except under
certain circumstances, such as if the husband is not the father of the
child.

In their written order accepting the case, Planned Parenthood of
Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (Case No. 91-744), the Justices
declined to say whether they might use it to reconsider their 1973
precedent legalizing abortion, Roe v. Wade. They simply stated they
would review the constitutionality of each of the major provisions of
the Pennsylvania law.

Abortion-rights organizations had explicitly asked the High Court to
review the Third Circuit ruling in the context of determining whether
Roe was still valid.

"Anything short of a resounding reaffirmation of Roe v. Wade"by the
Court after its review of the Pennsylvania case "will mean that, for
the first time in our history, a fundamental constitutional right will
have been taken away," said Kathryn Kolbert, a lawyer with the
Reproductive Freedom Project of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Helen Alvare, an official of the anti-abortion office of the
National Conference of Catholic Bishops, said she believes a majority
of the public "wants parents involved when a teenager is considering an
abortion."

Parental-Consent Provision

The parental-consent requirement has not been the most controversial
provision of the Pennsylvania law, in part because it generally follows
recent Supreme Court rulings requiring a "judicial bypass" option for
minors to get an abortion without informing one or both parents.

The law states that a woman under 18 and one of her parents must
give "informed consent" to the abortion. The federal district judge who
first heard the case ruled that the parental-consent provision requires
that a parent receive the same "in person" counseling about abortion
alternatives that his or her daughter must get from a doctor or a
counselor.

If her parents refuse to give consent, or if she chooses not to
inform them, a pregnant minor may ask a judge to find her "mature and
capable" of giving informed consent to have an abortion.

According to a recent report by the Alan Guttmaeher Institute, 18
states mandate parental consent or notification for abortions by
minors. An additional 9 states, including Pennsylvania, have similar
laws whose enforcement is currently enjoined by court orders. (See
Education Week, Jan. 22, 1992.)

Sales-Tax Revenue

In other action last week, the High Court heard arguments in a case
that could have a significant impact on state sales-tax revenues. In
Quill Corporation v. North Dakota (No. 91-194), the Court is being
asked to overturn a 1967 precedent that has effectively exempted direct
marketers from collecting sales taxes except from customers in states
where the companies have physical operations.

The National Governors' Association has estimated that states are
missing out on $2 billion to $3 billion annually in sales-tax revenue
as a result of mail- and phone-order purchases made by residents from
out-of-state companies.

"Direct marketing has become such a big player in the national sales
market," North Dakota's Attorney General, Nicholas J. Spaeth, told the
Justices on Jan. 22. "They have a competitive advantage over their
in-state competitors."

John E. Gaggini, a lawyer for Quill Corporation, an Illinois-based
mail-order firm that is the sixth largest provider of office supplies
in North Dakota, said one reason the company should not pay taxes is
that it does not benefit from North Dakota's state services.

A decision in the case is expected by July.

Vol. 11, Issue 19, Page 24

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.